NO DRINKING in rental property - legal or not?

PokerPlayer111

lovehols wrote: »

In my deeds I had a clause about not having pornographic material in the house.

davidmcn wrote: »

Can you keep it in the garden shed?

If you use the shed for the pornography, where are you going to grow the weed?

Pixie5740

lovehols wrote: »

I purchased my bungalow from the Roman Catholic Church (it's next door to a church and the priest did live there a long time ago). In my deeds I had a clause about not having pornographic material in the house. Strange but true. Not sure how they would enforce it though. Wasn't an issue for me and I can't see it impacting on the sale.

That's a bit rich coming from the Catholics. Jazz mags are a no-no but covering up child abuse is ok. Besides one person's pornography is another person's art so I have no idea how they would enforce that either.

AnotherJoe

Does these literally say "no drinking" or does it say "no alcohol" ?

moneyistooshorttomention

CC-Warrior wrote: »

I suspect it's religious as the advert states that it is within walking distance of mosques and madaresas.

Then I would think that clause counts as some sort of race discrimination - against us forgawdsake:eek:

One can't tell people they can't lead their own lifestyle in their own country:mad: - ie not even having a "civilised" glass or two of wine with dinner of a night.

I would think that advert is phrased that way quite deliberately in order to say "no-one to apply - unless they are a teetotal mosque goer" and would come under the same sort of thing as not being able to advertise a job in such a way that only men could apply for it (ie indirect sex discrimination to say applicants must be physically strong - which, of course, many women wouldn't be).

I know what I'd have to say to them if I were after the flat.....:cool: - assuming I didn't lie in the first place, thinking "None of their darn business. How dare they?".

EDIT; Wonder if there's any newspaper reporters around that might like to do an expose article on this?

Margot123

This could be an issue with a restrictive covenant in the deeds.

Mine state 'no drinking of alcohol between the hours of.........' (can't recall the hours, as I don't drink anyway). It also says something about parties and number of folk I can have round at any one time!

I'd like to see how these requirements could ever be enforced though.

Smodlet

I think MITSTM has a point about the veiled racism. How many white people are moslems? Then again, unless you were, why the hell would you want to live anywhere near a mosque anyway? To be woken up at 5am or whenever it is? Knickers to that. :beer:

Comms69

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Then I would think that clause counts as some sort of race discrimination - against us forgawdsake:eek:

One can't tell people they can't lead their own lifestyle in their own country:mad: - ie not even having a "civilised" glass or two of wine with dinner of a night.

I would think that advert is phrased that way quite deliberately in order to say "no-one to apply - unless they are a teetotal mosque goer" and would come under the same sort of thing as not being able to advertise a job in such a way that only men could apply for it (ie indirect sex discrimination to say applicants must be physically strong - which, of course, many women wouldn't be).

I know what I'd have to say to them if I were after the flat.....:cool: - assuming I didn't lie in the first place, thinking "None of their darn business. How dare they?".

EDIT; Wonder if there's any newspaper reporters around that might like to do an expose article on this?

Except it's not.


And just FYI it's perfectly acceptable to require someone be physically strong on a job advert - assuming that's what the job requires.


Presumably this is an area with a large Muslim community, a mosque being nearby would therefore be a selling point.


The clause is unenforceable at any rate, but it's certainly not racist!

Davesnave

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

(It) would come under the same sort of thing as not being able to advertise a job in such a way that only men could apply for it (ie indirect sex discrimination to say applicants must be physically strong - which, of course, many women wouldn't be).

Are you sure about that? Working in certain jobs requires an element of physical strength, so it would be misleading to advertise such work without indicating this to applicants.

I see plenty of women doing quite tough physical jobs and I also know men who, perhaps because of weight or infirmity, would struggle to do likewise. I don't think referring to the need for physical strength is unfair or sex discrimination. It seems a legitimate and fair warning of what to expect.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

It's not as shamelessly overt as "No Irish, No Blacks" but it is on the same page.

Davesnave

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I would think that clause counts as some sort of race discrimination - against us....

One can't tell people they can't lead their own lifestyle in their own country:mad:

Hang on, aren't you presuming rather a lot here?

You seem to be talking about 'us,' as though the advertiser isn't one of 'us' and it can't be their country too.

We know nothing about them or where they are naturalised.